Debated for the University of Central Missouri
Competitive experience: 4 years in NFA-LD, 3 years in Parli
Judging-related experience: ~10 years
Forward
It has been quite a long time since I reviewed my judging philosophy in debate. And, in the interest of providing detailed information to you, the debate community, I will attempt to consolidate my views on theoretical issues in debate. To me, some of the information contained herein are what I view as “best practices,” but they, in no way, reflect an unchangeable way to approach the round. Many times, debaters are persuasive enough to allow me to deviate from this published paradigm.
Topicality/Procedurals
RVIs - Topicality is always a voter, never a reverse voter. If you are running a K AFF and are leveraging evidence/arguments in the 1AC against the T or Procedural, then these are just reasons to reject topicality as a sheet of paper in the round. If you are going to do this, make sure that the links are clear and direct. Otherwise, you are wasting precious time.
General info - Most of the time, if the AFF can demonstrate that they successfully meet a counter-interpretation in the round, and that counter-interpretation still gives the NEG access to ground, that is warrant enough for me to err AFF on T. Competing interpretations just seems asinine to me. If you decide to run "competing interpretations," you must do significant work on the standards level in order to access topicality.
Kritiks/Critical Arguments
General caution with Ks - Despite the fact that I have ran multiple kritiks and K AFFs, I think I am with the rest of the NFA-LD community in saying that there just is not enough time in the activity to run and fully develop the kritik. Most of the arguments that philosophers and scholars make on these issues are a lot more nuanced than what can be expressed in a 14 or 15 minutes (depending on what side you are). I will listen to kritiks, and I invite them like any other argument.
I will caution that all debaters should read what the rules have to say about specific kritiks. This is not to say that I won't listen to those types of kritiks. I absolutely will. I personally think the rules stifle creativity and argument flexibility in this area. However, it is just a "best practice" to be familiar with the rules here so you can be knowledgeable about the activity you are doing.
Critical arguments - I like these types of arguments, if run correctly. You'll definitely be favored in the round if you are deploying these types of arguments effectively. However, what I find is that in rounds I am where there are these types of arguments, they are seldom impacted in ways that makes them relevant in the rebuttals. If this is your primary strategy, or a strategy you feel that you strongly consider a "round winner," please, please, please impact them to the ballot.
Kritiks - You have to win framework AND alternative to win the round with the K. I do not like plan-inclusive kritiks because there usually is a philosophical incompatible juxtaposition with the the thesis of the kritik that makes the debate muddled if left unaddressed.
Counterplans
Counterplans - I love them, but they have to solve for the AFFs harms 100 percent. They do not need a net-benefit. The reason for this is two-fold: 1) the rules do not require the NEG demonstrate a net-benefit, and 2) the counterplan is functions as an antithesis to the AFF. If the NEG can win that they solve for the AFF's harms, then that is warrant enough for me to vote NEG. The AFF here needs to win timeframe on solvency in order to capture my ballot.
Counterplans are conditional positions to me, and are a part of an entire strategy. Usually, counterplans are conditional arguments by default. It is the responsibility of the AFF to ask the NEG what the status of the counterplan text is. Likewise, if you perm the counterplan, please just don't say, "Do the plan and then the counterplan!" I have no idea what the functionality of the permutation is. In short, if you perm, you MUST have a stable perm text. Additionally, perms are equally conditional, and like counterplans, test your opponent's central claims in their positions (e.g. whether the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the AFF plan text). As for types of counterplans, run what you like.
I really like the counterplan/disad debate. I think it is an under utilized strategy in collegiate debate, and I would like to see more of it on the circuit.
Theory - usually, I look at theory first when weighing a counterplan. However, these arguments are always reasons to reject the counterplan, and never the team.
DAs
Bring them on. I love a good disad debate much like the next judge. I will vote on generic disads (e.g. tix, etc.), but I, most of the time, have erred AFF on theory and link analysis. I will not vote on a purely generic link to a tix disad. Both debaters must do impact calc work for me or else I am going to default NEG. However, if the AFF can show me how that the probability of the disad is infinitesimal, I will err AFF on the disad regardless if the NEG's disad impacts out to nuclear war.
Case
You don't need offense to win the case debate with me, but you do need to impact out how your defense is terminal (e.g. "X amount of funding is critical to implementation of plan"). In my experience, a lot of debaters usually spend a lot of time talking in circles with defensive arguments, and not enough time exploding offensive ones. In both instances, most debaters do not fully impact out what their solvency-related arguments mean.
Recent Disclosures
@ISU:
Round 1: Truman Carney (AFF) v ISU Dorsey (NEG)
1AC: National School Choice System AFF (http://nfacaselist.wikispaces.com/Truman+State)
1NC: T- Education (Must change curricula), Ban Public Schooling CP, Solvency D
Voted AFF
Hopefully that covers it. If not, feel free to ask specific questions. If you need any clarification, you can contact me via email (zdodson at gmail dot com). Best of luck on the season!
Competitive experience: 4 years in NFA-LD, 3 years in Parli
Judging-related experience: ~10 years
Forward
It has been quite a long time since I reviewed my judging philosophy in debate. And, in the interest of providing detailed information to you, the debate community, I will attempt to consolidate my views on theoretical issues in debate. To me, some of the information contained herein are what I view as “best practices,” but they, in no way, reflect an unchangeable way to approach the round. Many times, debaters are persuasive enough to allow me to deviate from this published paradigm.
Topicality/Procedurals
RVIs - Topicality is always a voter, never a reverse voter. If you are running a K AFF and are leveraging evidence/arguments in the 1AC against the T or Procedural, then these are just reasons to reject topicality as a sheet of paper in the round. If you are going to do this, make sure that the links are clear and direct. Otherwise, you are wasting precious time.
General info - Most of the time, if the AFF can demonstrate that they successfully meet a counter-interpretation in the round, and that counter-interpretation still gives the NEG access to ground, that is warrant enough for me to err AFF on T. Competing interpretations just seems asinine to me. If you decide to run "competing interpretations," you must do significant work on the standards level in order to access topicality.
Kritiks/Critical Arguments
General caution with Ks - Despite the fact that I have ran multiple kritiks and K AFFs, I think I am with the rest of the NFA-LD community in saying that there just is not enough time in the activity to run and fully develop the kritik. Most of the arguments that philosophers and scholars make on these issues are a lot more nuanced than what can be expressed in a 14 or 15 minutes (depending on what side you are). I will listen to kritiks, and I invite them like any other argument.
I will caution that all debaters should read what the rules have to say about specific kritiks. This is not to say that I won't listen to those types of kritiks. I absolutely will. I personally think the rules stifle creativity and argument flexibility in this area. However, it is just a "best practice" to be familiar with the rules here so you can be knowledgeable about the activity you are doing.
Critical arguments - I like these types of arguments, if run correctly. You'll definitely be favored in the round if you are deploying these types of arguments effectively. However, what I find is that in rounds I am where there are these types of arguments, they are seldom impacted in ways that makes them relevant in the rebuttals. If this is your primary strategy, or a strategy you feel that you strongly consider a "round winner," please, please, please impact them to the ballot.
Kritiks - You have to win framework AND alternative to win the round with the K. I do not like plan-inclusive kritiks because there usually is a philosophical incompatible juxtaposition with the the thesis of the kritik that makes the debate muddled if left unaddressed.
Counterplans
Counterplans - I love them, but they have to solve for the AFFs harms 100 percent. They do not need a net-benefit. The reason for this is two-fold: 1) the rules do not require the NEG demonstrate a net-benefit, and 2) the counterplan is functions as an antithesis to the AFF. If the NEG can win that they solve for the AFF's harms, then that is warrant enough for me to vote NEG. The AFF here needs to win timeframe on solvency in order to capture my ballot.
Counterplans are conditional positions to me, and are a part of an entire strategy. Usually, counterplans are conditional arguments by default. It is the responsibility of the AFF to ask the NEG what the status of the counterplan text is. Likewise, if you perm the counterplan, please just don't say, "Do the plan and then the counterplan!" I have no idea what the functionality of the permutation is. In short, if you perm, you MUST have a stable perm text. Additionally, perms are equally conditional, and like counterplans, test your opponent's central claims in their positions (e.g. whether the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the AFF plan text). As for types of counterplans, run what you like.
I really like the counterplan/disad debate. I think it is an under utilized strategy in collegiate debate, and I would like to see more of it on the circuit.
Theory - usually, I look at theory first when weighing a counterplan. However, these arguments are always reasons to reject the counterplan, and never the team.
DAs
Bring them on. I love a good disad debate much like the next judge. I will vote on generic disads (e.g. tix, etc.), but I, most of the time, have erred AFF on theory and link analysis. I will not vote on a purely generic link to a tix disad. Both debaters must do impact calc work for me or else I am going to default NEG. However, if the AFF can show me how that the probability of the disad is infinitesimal, I will err AFF on the disad regardless if the NEG's disad impacts out to nuclear war.
Case
You don't need offense to win the case debate with me, but you do need to impact out how your defense is terminal (e.g. "X amount of funding is critical to implementation of plan"). In my experience, a lot of debaters usually spend a lot of time talking in circles with defensive arguments, and not enough time exploding offensive ones. In both instances, most debaters do not fully impact out what their solvency-related arguments mean.
Recent Disclosures
@ISU:
Round 1: Truman Carney (AFF) v ISU Dorsey (NEG)
1AC: National School Choice System AFF (http://nfacaselist.wikispaces.com/Truman+State)
1NC: T- Education (Must change curricula), Ban Public Schooling CP, Solvency D
Voted AFF
Hopefully that covers it. If not, feel free to ask specific questions. If you need any clarification, you can contact me via email (zdodson at gmail dot com). Best of luck on the season!